naiveattack

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

My comment was not an argument/direct analogy to the parent.

They were a series of observations designed to illustrate a particular/contrasting point. Or rather an attempt to show where the boundaries lie in the grey of such thought.

Read the reply again without assuming the parents context. Do you agree with the observations presented?

naiveattack

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Yes, it is the relationship between them that makes this strange. The closeness.

naiveattack

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

I invite you to point out a flaw in my observations.

Sometimes it's good to be able to rationality ground your morality instead of merely feeling it. Guess which one will hold up when actually challenged in real life.

naiveattack

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

I made no comment on whether it was or was not inexcusable. This isn't about what I believe is correct.

Merely on the paradoxes and hypocrisy in this rather large stream of replies.

What exactly makes it inexcusable to you though? The fact that the owner of the house could but did not, and the proximity of the rooms?

That's what I'm talking about.

naiveattack

قبل 9 سنواتdiscuss

Take a homeless person and let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn -> moral hero.

Build a mansion around this kitchen -> morally reprehensible

It seems contrast in an unrelated area has confused the morally righteous over here.

Do you own a nice car? Have a room in your house that is currently empty? There are people out there who could use some of that wealth for food.

How would you feel if this wasn't a mansion but instead a small shack with only a kitchen and an adjacent room?

It seems we're ok with: Low contrast at any distance, High contrast at large distances.

But not high contrast at short distances

It's good the woman in the story has shelter and a place to sleep.

comments